On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 11
> Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:
> > Words
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> > to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's.
> Yes, but it's a relative thing.  They obviously do what they can with the 
> resources they have (are willing to dedicate).  We do the same.  A user's 
> single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but 
> if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to 
> ensure it's safety, neither should we.

I think I understand what you mean here, but it's not what you wrote as
best as I can tell.  As a developer, I believe it is my responsibility
to work a bit harder just so that the users don't have to resort to
'"superhuman" feats' to keep their systems running.  I do agree that no
matter what we provide, all users (including ourselves) will have to
expend some effort to take advantage of it.

> No, we don't go around 
> purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our 
> resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not 
> placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a 
> question if we will?  The presumption should be actions within the bounds 
> of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and 
> their distribution, us.  No more, no less.
> IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful 
> to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave 
> accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical, 
> seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the 
> priority he reveals by his own actions.  And if his actions reveal a 
> SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition.  
> That's all I was saying.


Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to